READ  THIS  —  STUDY  IT 

WITH    AN    UNBIASED    MIND 
IT    IS    "FOOD    FOR    THOUGHT" 


The  Prohibition   Movement 

Lecture  delivered  by 

Dr.   M.    M.  MANGASARIAN 

SUNDAY,  JANUARY  24th,  1915 
Majestic  Theatre,  Chicago 


What  I  am  about  to  say  on  the  subject  of 
this  morning  will  not  please  the  Prohibition- 
ists, neither  will  it  please  the  Liquor  interests. 
Why  speak  at  all  then,  if  I  am  neither  for 
prohibition  nor  for  the  saloons  as  many  are 
conducted  at  present?  Perhaps  you  will  be 
able  to  answer  that  question  after  you  have 
heard  the  lecture.  The  whole  country  is  agi- 
tated over  the  drink  question;  in  fact,  it  is  not 
a  local  question — it  is  not  even  a  national  or 
an  international  question  alone — it  is  a  world 
question. 

Two  methods  of  coping  with  it  have  been 
proposed, — regulation  and  prohibition.  The 
advocates  of  prohibition  say  that  the  liquor 
traffic  cannot  be  regulated;  the  champions  of 
regulation  insist  that  prohibition  does  not  pro- 
hibit. It  seems  that  the  movements  to  sup- 
press the  liquor  traffic  have  such  momentum 
— that  like  an  avalanche  which  has  started  to 
roll  down  the  mountain — it  has  to  touch  the 
bottom  before  it  can  stop. 

How  long  prohibition  will  last  after  it  has 
swept  the  country  is  very  difficult  to  predict, 
although  there  are  thousands  who  predict  with 
readiness  that  something  in  the  shape  of  pro- 
hibition will  soon  rend  this  country.  What  is 
prohibition?  You  are  familiar  with  what  is 
known  as  the  "Hobson  Amendment"  which 
was  voted  upon  recently  in  Congress.  It  is 
proposed  to  amend  the  United  States  Consti- 
tution so  as  to  make  the  "sale,"  the  manufac- 
ture for  "sale,"  the  importation  for  "sale"  and 
the  transportation  for  "sale"  of  alcoholic  bev- 
erages illegal.  Observe  the  frequency  with 
which  the  word  "sale"  occurs  in  this  proposed 
amendment.  Evidently  the  authors  of  the 
amendment  do  not  intend  to  prevent  or  sup- 
press the  use  of  alcoholic  liquors  but  only  its 


"sale,"  and  a  second  clause  allows  even  the 
"sale,"  the  manufacture  for  "sale"  of  alcoholic 
beverages  for  medicinal,  artistic  and  sacramen- 
tal purposes.  (Laughter.)  You  will  see  that 
the  Bill  as  it  stands  for  it  to  become  law — they 
only  succeed  in  depriving  the  government  of 
revenue  without  materially  affecting  the  use 
of  alcoholic  beverages.  The  Hobson  amend- 
ment is  very  lame;  it  is  not  really  worth  talk- 
ing about;  it  is  neither  one  thing  nor  the  other. 
The  natural  individual  or  real  prohibitionist  is 
disgusted  with  it.  They  would  like  to  intro- 
duce a  motion  to  prohibit  the  manufacture  for 
sale  or  use  forever  of  alcoholic  beverages. 
That  is  prohibition  and  I  shall  confine  my  re- 
marks to  the  real  thing,  but  in  the  first  place 
I  would  like  to  comment  on  the  uses  of  alcohol. 
If  we  Were  to  ask — is  alcohol  a  poison — an- 
swers would  be  contradictory  although  coming 
from  equally  responsible  authorities.  The  con- 
tention that  alcohol  is  a  poison  influences  a 
great  many  to  favor  prohibition;  but  a  poison 
which  takes  25  or  50  years  to  kill  a  man  can- 
not be  very  serious  poison,  moreover  even  if 
alcohol  were  not  a  poison,  it  is  not  alcohol  that 
is  drunk  and  the  ingredients  which  enter  into 
the  beverage  may  more  than  counteract  the 
alcoholic  poison.  Furthermore,  the  purest  food 
we  partake  of  may  poison  us.  The  great- 
est manufacturer  of  toxins  is  the  human  body. 
Thousands  die  every  year  from  what  we  might 
call  self-poisoning  with  food. 

The  next  question,  is  alcohol  a  food — would 
bring  an  equal  divergence  of  opinions  and  ex- 
pressions. Is  alcohol  medicinal — has  it  any 
medicinal  virtue — that  question  has  been 
tossed  back  and  forth  between  physicians  of 
contending  schools  but  a  much  more  interest- 
ing question  is,  does  alcohol  interfere  with  the 


THE     PROHIBITION     MOVEMENT. 


nervous  apparatus;  is  alcohol  a  depressent  or 
stimulant?  Experiments  have  been  made  by 
competent  scientists  to  show  that  alcohol  de- 
presses the  faculties  while  seeming  to  stimu- 
late them.  It  is  true  that  after  a  stein  of  beer 
or  a  glass  of  spirits,  the  drinker  is  made  loqua- 
cious and  gesticulates  the  more  frequently  and 
is  more  self-confident  but  that  is  because  his 
brain  is  on  a  vacation  so  to  speak.  You  know 
what  happens  in  a  school-room  when  the 
teacher  steps  aside  for  a  moment.  The  same 
abandon  takes  place  in  a  man  when  his  brain 
is  partially  paralyzed.  A  rooster  when  his  head 
is  cut  off  will  jump  about  for  a  few  seconds 
as  if  it  were  more  alive  than  ever;  that  is  be- 
cause he  has  lost  his  head.  (Laughter.)  If 
this  theory  be  correct,  alcohol  instead  of  stimu- 
lating, depresses  the  drinker.  The  seeming 
hilarity  is  nothing  more  than  the  flare  of  a 
candle  just  before  going  out. 

Other  experiments  have  been  made  to  show 
that  in  a  class  of  college  students,  the  boys  are 
more  active  in  their  work  if  they  have  not 
taken  any  alcohol  than  after  taking  alcohol  and 
in  a  business  office,  the  clerks  will  be  more 
accurate  in  their  additions  of  a  set  of  figures 
if  they  have  not  alcohol  in  their  systems  than 
if  they  have  taken  alcohol.  It  has  also,  I  think, 
been  demonstrated  that  a  regiment  of  soldiers 
will  march  further  and  arrive  at  its  destination 
less  fatigued  if  it  has  not  taken  any  alcohol 
than  if  it  started  on  its  journey  with  a  drink 
or  two  and  that  soldiers  are  more  accurate  and 
hit  the  mark  oftener  if  they  are  free  from  the 
influence  of  alcohol  than  if  they  are  under  its 
influence. 

Now  against  this  long  line  of  experiments, 
there  is  the  testimony  of  the  ages  and  the  whole 
world  that  alcohol  is  a  spirit.  Some  believe 
that  the  best  way  to  resist  a  great  deal  of  sor- 
row is  to  stimulate  themselves  with  an  alcoholic 
beverage  which  all  goes  to  show  that  it  is 
largely  a  physiological  problem ;  it  is  a  question 
of  temperament.  What  will  depress  one  per- 
son will  excite  another;  what  is  a  weight  to 
you  is  a  wing  to  your  neighbor.  Hygienically 
speaking  then,  my  opinion  (and  it  is  only  my 
opinion  and  it  is  not  worth  more  than  a  pri- 
vate opinion)  I  would  say  that  the  man  who 
does  not  drink  is  better  off  than  the  man  who 
drinks  and  I  would  say  the  same  thing  about 
the  man  who  smokes.  I  would  say  that  the 
man  who  does  not  smoke,  does  not  have  to 
smoke,  is  not  dependent  upon  his  cigar,  cigar- 
ette or  pipe,  is  better  off.      I  am  not  a  compe- 


tent person  to  speak  on  that  because  I  don't 
know  what  pleasure  there  is  in  smoking;  I  am 
not  in  a  position  to  talk  about  drinking  or  a 
drunkard  because  I  have  never  had  the  exper- 
ience. But  I  can,  however,  imagine  how  the 
man  who  enjoys  his  drink  with  his  meals, 
smokes  his  cigar  after  his  meals,  would  be 
greatly  benefitted  by  them.  That  to  a  man 
who  enjoys  the  taste — drinking  would  stimu- 
late his  digestive  organs  and  that  smoking  af- 
terwards, sitting  in  his  chair  in  the  act  of 
holding  his  cigar  between  his  fingers  with  the 
smoke  curling  up,  would  put  him  in  that  state 
of  mind  which  I  would  call  delicious.  (Laugh- 
ter.) I  could  enter  into  his  feelings.  And 
upon  the  influence  of  alcohol  upon  the  mind 
my  position  is  equally  clear.  The  student  who 
does  not  drink  is  better  off  than  the  one  who 
does.  Nevertheless,  you  know  that  some  years 
ago  in  this  country  nearly  every  preacher  be- 
fore he  entered  the  pulpit  gulped  down  a 
good  drink  of  whiskey,  which  he  called  the 
"heavenly  dew."  In  those  days  it  was  con- 
sidered that  the  man  who  had  whiskey  in  his 
stomach  was  sure  to  have  the  Holy  spirit  help- 
ing him  in  his  work. 

Of  Daniel  Webster  it  is  said  that  while  de- 
livering his  masterpieces  on  the  floor  of  the 
Senate,  brandy  was  served  to  him  more  than 
once  for  the  purpose  of  provoking  his  mind 
and  facilitating  the  flow  of  his  language  and 
nobody  thought  it  was  wrong  but  to  anybody 
who  wished  to  imitate  Daniel  Webster,  I  would 
say,  leave  the  brandy  alone.  However,  I  am 
thankful  that  I  realize  the  impossibility  of  set- 
ting up  myself  as  a  model  for  a  world  so  big, 
so  diverse  as  the  one  we  live  in.  If  the  time 
ever  came  when  everybody  in  the  world  should 
think  as  I  think  and  do  as  I  do,  I  would  be  the 
first  one  to  want  to  get  away  from  that  world. 
I  believe  therein  is  the  secret  of  tolerance — we 
must  have  a  sense  of  humor;  we  must  have 
the  ability  to  criticize  ourselves.  When  we  can 
do  that  we  cannot  be  intolerant. 

The  trouble  with  fanatics  is  that  they  cannot 
see  themselves  in  the  wrong.  They  cannot 
leave  out  themselves  and  that  is  why  they  are 
so  cool,  so  cold,  so  bigoted,  and  when  it  comes 
to  the  influence  of  alcohol  on  character,  my 
position  is  equally  clear.  I  would  never  think 
of  advising  a  young  man  to  drink  for  the 
help  of  his  reputation  or  character.  However,  I 
would  say  further,  that  a  man  who  holds  a  re- 
sponsible position — who  has  the  lives  of  many 
people  at  his  mercy — is  better  off  if  he  leaves 


THE     PROHIBITION     MOVEMENT. 


alcohol  alone.  Nevertheless,  if  I  went  to  a  pri- 
vate house  where  everybody  drank,  or  if  I 
went  to  a  restaurant  or  a  saloon  and  saw  one 
of  the  most  successful  business  men  or  lawyer 
cr  banker  of  reputation,  a  college  president  or 
even  a  preacher  drinking  at  the  table  with  his 
friends,  or  at  the  bar,  I  would  not  think  any 
less  of  him.  I  would  say,  there  is  a  man  who 
can  maintain  the  highest  efficiency  and  com- 
mand the  confidence  and  respect  of  the  pub- 
lic. Indeed,  I  would  imagine  that  such  a  man 
was  a  little  stronger  than  the  man  whose  char- 
acter and  reputation  is  in  danger  by  his  drink- 
ing. However,  if  a  young  man  said  to  me — 
do  you  think  I  ought  to  drink  occasionally — I 
would  say,  you  are  better  off  if  you  don't  and 
I  would  say  the  same  thing  about  smoking. 
I  would  not  think  of  saying  to  a  man  like  Mr. 
Roosevelt  or  a  man  like  Mr.  Taft, — if  you 
don't  drink  or  smoke  you  will  be  a  better  man. 
I  think  that  would  be  impudent;  that  would 
be  impertinent;  that  would  be  fanatical.  You 
see  the  man  who  does  not  drink  fears  that  he 
might  become  the  slave  of  drink  as  I  intimated 
a  moment  ago — the  man  who  can  enjoy  every- 
thing confident  that  he  will  not  abuse  any- 
thing, is  perhaps  a  stronger  man.  He  has  at 
least  one  more  pleasure  which  the  other  is 
afraid  to  touch,  although  in  justice,  I  must  say 
that  the  man  who  knows  his  weakness  and 
controls  himself,  is  also  a  stronger  man.  The 
advantage  I  would  say — we  want  to  be  per- 
fectly fair — is  on  the  side  of  the  man  who  can 
enjoy  everything  because  he  is  sure  he  is  not 
going  to  abuse  anything.  I  wish  we  could  all 
have  that  power.  There  is  for  instance,  some- 
thing that  I  am  very  fond  of  in  the  eating  line. 
I  am  very  fond  of  pastry;  I  am  very  fond  of 
candy  but  cannot  eat  them  and  when  I  see  a 
man  who  can  eat  pastry  and  candy  I  don't  pity 
him — I  envy  him!  (Laughter)  and  likewise, 
we  might  envy  the  man — we  might  say — what 
a  strong  man.  He  can  drink  his  beer,  he  can 
drink  his  brandy  and  he  h  as  regular  as  a  clock 
and  as  respectable  and  clean  and  faithful  as 
we  could  wish,  from  all  of  which  it  follows, 
that  this  is  purely  a  personal  matter,  altogether 
beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  state  as  far  as 
moderate  drinking  is  concerned. 

I  have  not  yet  said  anything  about  drunken- 
ness but  you  have  to  agree  with  me  that  the 
state  has  the  right  to  interfere  and  stop  the 
spread  of  drunkenness.  You  have  to  agree 
with  me  that  the  state  cannot  be  indifferent  to 
the  matter  of  drunkenness.     It  is  a  question  of 


self-preservation  with  the  State.  If  the  State 
did  not  control  and  the  nation  became  drunk, 
then  very  soon  the  State  would  be  in  the  posi- 
tion of  a  tree  whose  leaves  kept  dropping  and 
whose  branches  kept  falling  to  the  ground  until 
finally  there  is  nothing  left  but  the  bare  trunk 
— stripped  of  all  verdure  and  hollow  like  a 
pipe.  To  avoid  that,  the  State  must  fight  the 
drunkard. 

However,  you  will  admit  that  the  people 
who  use  alcoholic  beverages  without  endang- 
ering their  lives  or  the  lives  of  others  largely 
outnumber  the  drunkards.  Hence,  any  interest 
in  the  interests  of  the  question  which  narrows 
down  to  this:  Has  the  State  the  right  to  de- 
prive this  large  number  of  its  personal  lib- 
erty, because  the  minority  abuses  that  liberty? 
However,  we  must  not  make  light  of  drunken- 
ness even  though  we  have  a  handful  of  drunk- 
ards. It  is  a  serious  problem.  One  case  of 
smallpox  or  cholera  might  well  throw  the 
whole  community  into  a  panic  and  I  would 
say  that  one  drunkard  staggering  in  the  streets 
of  Chicago,  going  home  to  his  wife  and  breed- 
ing degenerate  offspring  might  well  throw  the 
whole  nation  into  a  panic.  Then,  this  is  a 
question  which  confronts  us:  How  can  we 
protect  the  personal  rights  of  the  American 
citizen  and  at  the  same  time  lay  the  axe  at 
the  roots  of  drunkenness?  It  is  a  matter  of 
record  that  neither  the  interests  of  the  saloon 
nor  of  the  prohibitionists  have  ever  tried  to 
come  together  and  see  if  a  modus  operandi 
could  not  be  decided  upon  by  which  this 
object  could  be  accomplished  and  protect  the 
rights  of  the  citizen  and  at  the  same  time,  fight 
drunkenness. 

As  some  saloons  are  conducted  now  and 
the  liquor  interests  are  conducted  now  I  am 
not  inclined  to  look  for  any  solution  of  the 
problem  from  them.  It  is  a  pity.  The  liquor 
interests  are  mighty;  they  have  tremendous 
funds  and  are  using  large  sums  of  money  for 
what?  I  wish  they  were  using  all  their  time, 
their  money  and  their  interest  to  solve  this 
problem  to  see  how  they  can  diminish  or  stop 
the  spread  of  drunkenness;  that  is  their  work. 
Leave  the  machine  alone;  leave  the  prohibi- 
tionists to  fight ;  tax  your  minds  to  invent  ways 
and  means  so  that  the  liquor  interests  are  op- 
posed to  drunkenness;  they  will  not  encourage 
it — they  will  check  it;  they  will  swallow  them 
up,  ruin  their  business  as  well  as  their  repu- 
tation. That  is  not  for  him.  That  is  the 
enemy!  that  is  the  enemy!  that  is  the  enemy! 


THE     PROHIBITION     MOVEMENT. 


That  is  the  menace  to  the  saloon — the  drunk- 
ard. Go  after  him  with  all  your  money — with 
all  your  brains — with  all  your  country-wide 
influence.  Study  the  number  of  saloons,  kind 
of  people  found  there  and  the  way  they  are 
conducted.  The  number  of  days  the  saloons 
are  open — study  all  this  and  we  have  got  to 
stop  drunkenness  or  else  we  must  go  on  down. 
I  regret  to  say  that  the  saloons  have  neglected 
the  most  important  question.  Now,  it  is  the 
law  of  evolution  and  you  cannot  take  excep- 
tion to  the  law  of  evolution,  that  whatever  in- 
stitution does  not  adapt  itself  to  its  environ- 
ment, goes  under. 

Do  you  know  that  there  has  been  a  radical 
change  in  public  opinion  concerning  drinking? 
That  is  evident,  you  don't  have  to  close  your 
eyes  to  it.  A  great  change  has  come  over  the 
public.  Know  that,  know  it,  write  it  down! 
You  know  also  that  there  is  a  great  interest  on 
the  part  of  the  public  on  the  question  of  sani- 
tation. That  is  also  something  new — it  is  a 
new  environment.  You  know  there  is  also  a 
more  insistent  demand  for  decency.  Now 
then,  the  saloon  must  be  able  to  respond  to 
this  general  improvement.  If  it  cannot,  if  it 
won't,  it  is  doomed.  Give  the  truth  to  new 
America  or  step  aside.  Have  men  of  genius, 
men  of  brains,  men  of  large  hearts  in  your 
business  that  will  see  that.  The  Church  is  in 
the  same  trouble  and  won't  adapt  itself.  Ev- 
erything progresses;  everything  broadens  ex- 
cept the  church  and  the  result  is,  that  the 
church  is  exposed  like  a  roofless  building, — to 
the  blows  which  in  multitudes  rain  down  on 
its  head — exposed  to  attack  from  every  quar- 
ter, simply  because  it  is  an  antiquated  institu- 
tion; it  is  obsolete — for  it  is  dead;  it  is  not  in 
tune  with  the  ages,  that  is  all,  but  the  church 
won't  see  it  and  hence  its  trouble. 

I  have  spent  all  my  life,  I  should  say,  or 
that  is,  most  half  my  life,  trying  to  show  the 
Church  how  it  may  preserve  itself  by  making 
its  peace  with  science  and  modern  thought  and 
if  I  had  the  opportunity  I  would  say  to  the 
saloon,  make  your  peace  with  Public  Opinion, 
if  you  want  to  live! 

Now  directing  my  remark  to  the  other  side 
— the  Prohibitionists — I  find  they  make  the 
same  mistakes  and  that  they  will  never  solve 
this  problem  unless  they  turn  over  a  really  new 
leaf.  Let  me  now  address  myself  to  the 
Prohibition  question — real  prohibition.  That 
movement  is  based  upon  the  doctrine  that  the 
liquor  traffic  is  a  criminal  business.     If  they  can 


prove  that  contention,  the  position  of  the  pro- 
hibitionists is  unassailable.  If  they  cannot 
prove  it,  the  prohibition  movement  then  col- 
lapses. I  am  not  of  the  opinion  that  nearly 
every  important  business  is  a  creature  of  the 
State.  The  State  is  the  creator  of  the  busi- 
ness. I  would  not  invest  my  money — you 
would  not  invest  yours  if  it  were  not  for  this 
protection  which  the  State  affords  us.  With- 
out such  encouragement  we  would  not  go  into 
business.  The  State  creates  the  business  in  the 
next  place,  by  issuing  a  license.  The  business 
is  the  creature  of  the  State.  Now  the  State 
licenses  and  is  still  licensing  the  liquor  traffic 
and  therefore  the  liquor  traffic  exists  by  the 
consent  and  approval  of  the  Stat*  and  there- 
fore if  it  is  a  criminal  business  it  involves  the 
State  just  as  much  as  the  individual.  Another 
reflection  is  that  the  State  not  only  licenses  the 
liquor  traffic  but  shares  with  the  brewer  and 
distiller  his  profits.  Senator  Underwood  said 
on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  recently,  that  the 
U.  S.  Government  derived  the  enormous  sum 
of  $333,000,000  per  annum  from  the  liquor 
traffic.  That  is  a  billion  dollars  every  three 
years  or  so. 

Now  how  can  a  business  be  denounced  as 
criminal  when  it  is  yielding  so  large  a  profit 
to  the  people,  for  the  State  is  the  people,  and 
the  people  accept  their  share  of  the  profits. 

A  third  reflection  that  if  the  liquor  traffic  exists 
by  permission  of  the  State  and  the  State  shares 
its  profits  in  the  shape  of  dues  and  taxes,  then 
if  the  liquor  traffic  is  suppressed  the  govern- 
ment would  be  under  obligations  to  compen- 
sate the  distillers  and  brewers  for  the  loss  of 
their  property.  I  am  not  a  lawyer  to  know 
whether  they  would  have  any  legal  or  tech- 
nical claim  against  the  government,  but  I  don't 
care  about  that,  I  am  considering  it  from  a 
broader  point  of  view.  I  am  discussing  the 
subject  along  the  line  of  principle.  Do  you 
know  that  in  France — this  is  a  good  illustra- 
tion— gambling  is  allowed  in  those  beautiful, 
handsome  casinos,  at  the  watering  places  and 
there  is  a  government  agent  to  watch  the  pro- 
ceedings and  take  the  government's  share  of 
the  profits.  Now  suppose  that  the  French  gov- 
ernment passes  a  law  making  gambling  a  crime 
and  ordering  the  casinos  closed,  don't  you 
think  that  morally  speaking,  if  not  legally,  the 
owners  of  the  Casinos  are  entitled  to  compen- 
sation, for  the  Casinos  were  built — the  invest- 
ments were  made  by  the  permission  and  en- 
couragement of  and  licensing  by  the  State  be- 


THE     PROHIBITION     MOVEMENT 


fore  the  enactment  of  a  law  forbidding  the 
existence  of  the  Casino.  You  know  that  a 
law  cannot  be  violated  until  it  has  been  en- 
acted; a  law  cannot  be  retroactive  in  its  pun- 
ishment. If  I  loan  a  man  $100  at  10  per  cent 
and  the  next  year  that  is  pronounced  usury  by 
a  new  law,  I  am  entitled  to  my  10  per  cent 
because  when  the  investment  was  made  it  was 
legal  and  the  law  cannot  go  back,  but  must  go 
forward. 

Therefore  1  don't  want  to  belabour  this 
point,  the  Government,  the  people  have  spent 
a  million  dollars  that  they  have  drawn  from 
this  business  and  they  should  just  as  much  be 
ready  to  part  with  it  as  they  think  that  the 
Brewer  should  be  in  opening  up  his  invest- 
ment. A  building  put  up  for  brewery  pur- 
poses that  cost  $60,000  would  not  be  worth 
$5,000  for  anything  else  and  $45,000  in  my 
opinion  should  be  returned  to  the  Brewer. 
That  would  be  high  class.  That  would  show 
the  prohibitionists  the  country  over;  that 
would  show  them  that  the  people  want  a  re- 
form and  they  wanted  to  pay  for  it  themselves. 
We  want  a  reform,  no  mistake  about  that.  We 
want  a  reform,  but  at  whose  expense?  Pay 
for  it,  don't  send  the  bill  to  the  Brewer.  Per- 
haps it  would  be  an  economical  act  of  wisdom 
too  as  well  as  moral,  to  say  we  will  buy  you 
out  to  show  our  good  faith.  We  will  buy  out 
the  distillers  and  brewers  because  these  went 
into  the  business  under  our  protection  by  our 
permission  and  we  shared  with  them  their  prof- 
its; we  will  buy  them  out. 

If,  during  slavery,  the  large  hearted  men  had 
raised  a  fund  to  buy  the  slaves,  because  slavery 
was  at  one  time  allowed  by  the  country,  that 
miserable  war  might  have  been  avoided.  At 
any  rate,  the  attempt  could  have  been  made. 
I  say  to  the  prohibitionist,  buy  out  the  saloon! 
Buy  out  the  business!  Pay  for  the  reform  out 
of  your  own  pocket,  but  then  of  course,  the 
most  important  point  and  a  strong  argument 
against  prohibition  is  the  moral  argument. 
You  know  that  there  are  certain  spheres  of  life 
that  should  never  be  entered  upon  by  the  out- 
sider.     Isn't  that  interesting? 

Now  you  can  dictate  to  me  in  a  thousand 
ways  but  there  are  certain  things  that  you  must 
not  press  upon.  England  at  one  time,  used  all 
her  imperial  resources  to  compel  Ireland  to  go 
to  the  Episcopal  Church.  That  was  foolish  as 
well  as  criminal  because  England  had  no  right 
to  enter  into  those  privacies  of  a  people  which 
are  sacred  and  of  course,  it  failed.      It  failed! 


All  the  effort  and  all  the  money  was  wasted. 
The  Irishman  guarded  his  private  premises  and 
would  not  allow  England  to  desecrate  them. 
Compulsory  morality  is  no  morality  at  all ; 
that  is  spurious.  A  muzzled  nation  or  fasten- 
ing the  prohibition  muzzle  upon  a  nation,  is 
not  the  same  thing  as  making  America  tem- 
perate. How  foolish!  Such  ignorance  of 
psychology  with  a  muzzle  upon  the  nation,  we 
cannot  say  that  this  is  a  temperate  or  moral 
country;  we  can  only  say  this  is  a  muzzled 
country.  But  do  we  not  prohibit  murder? 
Why  can  we  not  prohibit  the  sale  or  use  of 
alcoholic  beverages;  do  you  think  that  the 
habit  of  drinking  can  be  listed  with  the  taking 
of  life?  But  how  about  the  prohibition  of 
cocaine  and  other  injurious  drugs?  You  know 
as  well  as  I  do  that  it  would  be  impossible  for 
people  to  use  cocaine  for  example,  daily,  on  a 
general  scale  without  contracting  the  habit.  It 
is  fatal.  But  we  know  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that 
thousands  and  thousands  of  people  drink  every 
day  without  contracting  the  habit  or  becoming 
drunkards.  There  are  the  facts.  It  is  not  a 
question  of  theory.  If  people  could  use  co- 
caine as  harmlessly  as  they  can  use  beer  or 
wine,  it  would  cease  to  be  a  menace  to  the 
country. 

There  is  a  law  against  the  carrying  of  con- 
cealed weapons  but  would  that  law  make  a 
man  who  carries  a  penknife  in  his  pocket,  a 
criminal?  And  yet,  with  a  penknife  he  can 
take  life.  The  difference  between  cocaine  muz- 
zled and  wine  muzzled  is  greater  than  the  dif- 
ference between  a  six-shooter  and  paper  cut- 
ter. So  you  see  that,  as  I  said,  it  is  not  a  ques- 
tion of  theory;  it  is  a  question  of  fact.  A  man 
can  carry  a  penknife  in  his  pocket  without  vio- 
lating the  law  but  cannot  carry  a  revolver  with- 
out violating  the  law.  So  a  man  can  drink  his 
beer  or  wine  without  being  a  criminal,  but  he 
cannot  partake  of  cocaine  without  running 
counter  to  the  laws  of  the  State. 

Still  another  objection  I  find  against  the  pro- 
hibition movement  is  that  it  is  class  legislation. 
The  liquor  men  do  not  imperil  the  rights  of 
the  man  who  does  not  wish  to  drink  but  the 
teetotaler  deprives  the  man  who  wants  to  drink, 
of  his  rights.  You  see  then,  that  it  is  the  rights 
of  the  man  who  wants  to  drink  that  should  be 
protected  since  the  rights  of  the  man  who  does 
not  wish  to  drink,  are  not  at  all  menaced  and 
it  should  be  the  aim  of  the  government  to  see 
that  the  man  who  wants  wine  at  his  table,  re- 
ceives  the  same  protection   that   the  man  re- 


THE     PROHIBITION     MOVEMENT, 


ceives  who  wants  to  keep  wine  away  from  his 
table.  Who  would  think  of  a  government  that 
would  protect  a  man  who  does  not  want  to 
drink,  when  it  does  not  give  any  protection 
and  will  not  protect  a  man  who  is  a  sober, 
temperate  man,  who  wants  to  drink  occasion- 
ally and  whose  rights  are  menaced?  A  gov- 
ernment that  will  do  that  is  not  a  government 
of  the  whole  people  neither  can  it  be  called  a 
rational  government.  But  a  still  more  formid- 
able objection,  from  my  point  of  view,  is  that 
prohibition  will  bring  back  puritanism.  I  am 
neither  for  the  church  nor  for  the  saloon.  As 
far  as  I  am  concerned  if  everybody  did  as  I  do, 
they  would  starve  to  death  and  I  would  not 
wear  mourning  at  their  funeral.  As  stated 
from  my  point  of  view,  then,  everybody  would 
be  barred  if  rationalism  prevailed  in  the  coun- 
try, but  do  you  think  that  we  have  the  right, 
as  long  as  we  can  control  a  two-thirds  vote  in 
the  House,  to  pass  a  law  amending  the  Consti- 
tution to  forbid  going  to  church  and  making 
going  to  church  a  crime?  There  are  93,000,- 
000  of  people  in  America.     Suppose  90,000,- 

000  were  rationalists — would  they  have  a  right 
to  say  what  the  remaining  3,000,000  should 
accept  as  their  religion?  That  is  the  point  I 
was  speaking  of  a  minute  ago.  You  say,  why 
do  I  compare  the  saloon  with  the  church?  I 
have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  if  I  had  to 
choose  between  intoxication  and  superstition, 

1  would  choose  the  former.  The  lowest  kind 
of  a  dive — I  don't  want  to  be  exaggerating,  but 
the  lowest  kind  of  a  dive  is  preferable  to  super- 
stition. 

What  is  the  worst  thing  that  can  happen  in 
a  dive?  Robbery,  murder,  or  both;  under  the 
influence  of  liquor — and  robbery  and  murder 
on  a  vast  scale  have  been  committed  under 
superstition  and  with  deliberate  intention. 

Do  you  remember  the  distinction  I  always 
try  to  make  between  the  sense  of  passion  and 
the  sense  of  calculation?  I  would  say  again, 
that  I  make  up  my  mind  not  to  eat  certain 
things  because  they  hurt  me,  but  I  cannot  re- 
sist them.  I  eat  them  and  they  hurt  me.  Now 
that  is  the  sin  of  passion;  it  is  not  a  sin  of  cal- 
culation. There  is  a  vast  difference  between 
the  sins  of  the  drunkard  and  the  sins  of  the 
bigot,  for  after  all,  the  sins  of  the  drunkard  are 
deformities  of  the  flesh  and  of  the  mind;  are 
not  deliberate,  calculated  crimes. 

In  161  1 ,  in  England,  when  the  country  was 
under  the  Puritan  regime,  one  morning  they 
dragged  a  man  out  of  jail  and  hanged  him  and 


then  they  took  him  down  and  cut  his  heart  out 
and  threw  it  into  the  fire  where  it  roasted  in 
the  presence  of  a  mob,  then  they  cut  his  body 
into  four  parts,  then  nailed  them  on  a  cross, 
then  they  took  his  head  and  fastened  it  on  top 
of  a  pole  and  set  it  before  his  house,  at  White 
Chapel.  What  was  his  crime,  what  was  his 
crime?  He  had  spoken  against  the  observa- 
tion of  Sunday.  Tell  me,  tell  me,  has  the  vilest 
drunkard  ever  committed  a  more  insane,  a 
more  cruel  act,  can  that  be  surpassed,  by  the 
fanaticism  of  intoxication,  and  yet  I  am  not 
drawing  upon  the  calendar  of  horrors  of  the 
church.  I  have  given  you  only  one  illustration 
to  justify  my  choice  of  intoxication  against 
superstitution. 

Green,  one  of  the  historians  of  England 
says,  that  under  Puritanism,  the  whole  nation 
was  a  church  and  the  most  minute  regulations 
were  imposed  in  the  interests  of  their  creed 
upon  private  actions.  There  was  no  privacy 
left;  it  was  desecrated.  Everybody  pushed 
your  door  open  and  walked  in.  Is  there  any 
danger  of  Puritanism  coming  back?  My 
friend,  I  want  to  tell  you  that  the  past  died 
hard;  that  the  past  is  at  the  door,  waiting  for 
a  nod  to  come  in.  What  is  the  motive,  do  you 
think  of  the  churches  in  going  into  the  reform 
work — in  taking  hold  of  social  questions?  It 
is  to  be  ready  to  come  into  power  again.  If 
the  church  cannot  come  back  through  the  door 
of  reform  it  will  sneak  back  by  way  of  the 
saloon.  The  saloon  is  a  great  advertiser  of  the 
preacher  today.  Puritanism  will  come  back — 
is  ready  to  come  back  and  when  it  comes  back, 
we  will  have  another  New  England.  What  is 
my  objection  to  Puritanism?  I  can  put  it  in 
one  sentence — "Too  much  Government!"  and 
the  best  government  is  that  which  governs  the 
least.  The  ideal  is  the  maximum  of  service 
combined  with  the  minimum  of  coercion.  But 
I  have  to  hurry  on  and  tell  you  of  still  another 
objection,  that  is,  that  extreme  measures  do 
more  harm  than  good. 

A  good  surgeon  never  resorts  to  the  knife 
except  as  a  last  resort  and  it  has  to  be  shown 
that  everything  has  been  done  to  regulate  the 
liquor  traffic  and  keep  it  within  bounds  before 
it  is  cut  out.  In  the  State  of  New  York  when 
there  were  6,000,000  people,  there  were  346 
saloons.  Today  there  are  1 0,000,000  in  the 
State  of  New  York  and  23,475  saloons.  More- 
over extreme  measures,  instead  of  restricting 
the  evil,  spread  it.    There  is  nothing  to  prevent, 


THE     PROHIBITION     MOVEMENT. 


under  Prohibition,  a  man  making  his  own 
whiskey  in  his  own  kitchen.  All  he  has  to  do  is 
to  have  a  pot,  a  number  of  pounds  of  molasses, 
a  rubber  tube,  a  pitcher  and  he  makes  his  own 
whiskey.  Instead  of  one  man  smelling  of 
whiskey  the  whole  house  will  smell  of  it.  (Ap- 
plause). Children  will  be  eyewitnesses  of  it. 
The  government  agent  will  not  be  there  to 
inspect  it.  Isn't  it  foolish?  Do  you  want  a 
dog  to  become  vicious — all  you  have  to  do  is 
to  chain  him.  Farmers  chain  their  dogs  that 
they  may  become  vicious.  You  chain  a  people 
and  you  make  them  more  vicious.  You  give 
them  that  feeling  that  they  have  been  injured  or 
wronged  and  you  will  make  hypocrites  of  them. 
Where  there  is  freedom  you  will  preserve  their 
mental  equilibrium. 

I  say  to  the  Prohibitionist  you  admit  that 
freedom  of  faith,  freedom  of  thought,  freedom 
of  speech,  freedom  of  action  is  the  inalienable 
right  of  every  citizen?  Yes!  I  say  to  the  Li- 
quor Interests  do  you  not  agree  with  me  that 
drunkenness  is  a  great  peril  and  must  be  stop- 
ped at  any  cost?  Yes!  My  position  becomes 
clear.  Let  the  prohibitionists  agree  that  they 
will  support  the  individual  in  fighting  drunk- 
enness without  violating  the  personal  rights 
of  the  sober,  temperate  citizen  and  I  will  say 


to  the  saloon,  you  will  have  all  the  protection 

that  this  great  nation  can  offer  if  you  will  pre- 
vent, practically  prevent,  drunkenness  and  if 
you  have  an  honest,  sincere  desire  to  save  the 
nation  from  the  curse  of  drunkenness.  Go 
after  the  saloons  as  long  as  they  make  drunk- 
ards of  the  American  people.  Go  after  the 
Prohibitionists  as  long  as  they  menace  the 
rights  of  the  individual  to  pursue  life,  liberty 
and  proper  happiness  as  his  own  conscience 
shall  dictate  to  him — this  inviolable,  inalienable 
right,  this  privacy  of  the  individual,  the  na- 
tion cannot  desecrate.  I  trust  that  some  way 
will  be  found  to  bring  the  two  factions  together 
that  are  now  inpoverishing  one  another  and 
wasting  their  money  to  get  together  and  agree, 
one  to  fight  drunkenness,  the  other  to  protect 
the  rights  of  the  American  citizen  and  we  our- 
selves will  lend  our  help  against  any  attempt 
to  diminish  the  privileges  and  the  liberties  of 
the  American  citizen  against  any  attempt  to 
make  this  country  another  Puritan  land. 

Schiller,  in  one  of  his  essays,  describes  the 
evil  effects  of  repressive  government  by  saying 
that  it  makes  creatures  of  men.  Now  we  have 
our  slogan  "COME  WHAT  MAY,  WE 
SHALL  BE  MEN,  NOT  CREATURES!" 
(Applause.) 


Issued  by 
Educational    Publicity    Department 
Manufacturers  and  Dealers  Association  of  America 
Chicago,   U.  S.  A. 


Copy  of  this  will  be  mailed  free  by  enclosing  2c  for  postage. 


';(£> 


